As the Sun Rotates Around the Earth

The Prop 8 trial descended into anti-science today as the anti-gay lawyers tried to raise questions about climate change and scientists manipulating data at the behest of the government. The poor victim of this was Dr. Michael Lamb, who is at the NIH as part of their developmental psychology team and has studied child development since the 1970s. He has authored or colloborated on 40 books and penned 500 scientific articles as well as been involved in peer reviews of 2,500-3,000 articles. For his 30-40 years of work, he was awarded an award for lifetime contribution to psychology by the Association of Child Psychology. In his testimony he elaborated how studies since the 1970s have moved to a point where by the early 1990s there was a consensus that it wasn't as important that children be exposed to masculine and feminine roles such much as raised by loving and supporting parents of whatever gender. He rattled off a list of professional organizations in the field of psychology that all agree that children raised by gay or lesbian parents were just as likely to be well-adjusted as children raised by a heterosexual couple. In short, gays and lesbians can be as good parents as heteros.

Well, that opened the door for the shoes to start dropping. First, the anti-gay lawyers raised the fact that Dr. Lamb was a member of the ACLU and was a committed liberal. They asked him didn't science once believe in phrenology, which he good-humoredly pointed out that most of those people weren't scientists. They then asked him about the East Anglia issue on global warming, the alleged scandal of e-mails stolen by hackers to "prove" climate change was a "hoax". Then they cited studies from the 1950s and 1960s--I can't imagine there was much empirical evidence--that showed "gender disorders" appearing in children of same sex couples. Lamb politely re-defined the issue and said such things were very rare. They asked about the findings that 12% of girls raised by a Lesbian couple turned out to be lesbians--a higher percentage than in the general population. He said he knew of no studies that showed that. They then asked about the greater frequency of child abuse in same-sex families. He again said there was no evidence that it was more than in heterosexual marriages. They went on a long riff about the differences between mothers and fathers and the unique role of both, which he claimed has become less important than nurturing couples. They pointed to his blurb for one of their witness's books, which he said that he guessed he had been diplomatic in the wording. They wanted him to affirm its findings. At points Lamb complained about all the references they made to works based in the 1950s and 1960s. They tried to make the statement that science was political and funded by governments, suggesting the conclusions were tailor made.

The effect was of some time-warp where the anti-gay lawyers were arguing for Ozzie and Harriet as the ideal parental unit when Dr. Lamb was trying to talk about the different forms of families that exist today. Given the testimony yesterday about the stressors ,which effect people undergoing discrimination, it was clear that it was Lamb's subject which is their hot button. Children have to be protected. Girls will become lesbians, children will be sexually abused, and boys will grow up without role models. Gay marriage will lead to the end of civilization as we know it. Some blogger felt that it sounded like the Snopes trial today.

Meanwhile ProtectMarriage.com filed an injunction against the Prop8trialtrackers for using a parody of their Prop 8 symbol, which drew an acerbic letter from their lawyer. The pro marriage lawyer was from Ohio, not California. Also, Dr. Tam of legalizing child sex argument petitioned the court to withdraw from the case as a witness. Observers felt that this was maneuver to prevent his e-mails and correspondance from appearing on the record since Tam was a major organizer of the anti-gay effort and profited handsomely from the whole enterprise.

I am waiting for the religious element to appear. So far it has not. There is one academic listed for the anti-gay side whom we haven't heard from but the gay bloggers clearly know who he is and can't wait for him to be subjected to cross-examination.

But the whole issue that science is politics I found especially disturbing. The expert witnesses brought forward so far represent the opinions of a large section of their disciplines. It was clear that the anti-gay lawyers didn't want to touch them because they carry great authority. But today, it was clear that science to them is just hokum--things that you can make up. Peer review articles absolutely mean nothing to them and I've noticed to the right. We now have a whole industry of anti-science. Whether it's attacking evolution like the Discovery Institute does or Global Climate Change as the George Marshall Institute does, the right simply no longer believes in science or that science should inform our viewpoints or opinions. If an astroid is found travelling to smash into Planet Earth, pay someone else to say it's not. This puts a real burden on real scientists because the scientific method is laborious and methodical. It is not easily comprehended by the layperson.

This becomes dangerous in the attempts just this month of Texas attempting to change their textbooks to eliminate discussions of evolution. Europeans think Americans are ludicrous about this and they are right. But what if you have a generation that grows up with no exposure to science and the scientific method? Can one pretend to be an advanced country in those circumstances. Should we find out that some of our prejudices are not based on reality? Heaven forbid.